Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

A R Senthilmurugan vs Reka

Madras High Court|21 June, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21.06.2017 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN Criminal Revision Case No.708 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.No.6716 of 2017 A.R.Senthilmurugan Petitioner Vs Reka ... Respondent Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the orders passed in M.C.No.35 of 2016 dated 13.02.2017 on the file of the Family Court, Villupuram, set aside the same.
Counsel For petitioner : Mr.V.Elangovan For respondent : Mr.C.Meena, Legal Aid
O R D E R
Challenging the order, granting maintenance to the respondent, the present Criminal Revision Case has been filed.
2. The respondent herein is the wife of the petitioner.
According to the respondent, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent solemnized on 29.01.2009. At the time of marriage, sufficient dowry has been given to the petitioner. Out of the wedlock, the respondent gave birth to a female child by name Vindhya, she is a special child. The petitioner is running an auto mechanic shop and after the birth of the child, the petitioner harassed the respondent and driven her out of the matrimonial house, now the petitioner is residing in her parental house along with the child. The petitioner has no means and not able to maintain herself and the differently abled child. Hence, the respondent filed a petition in M.C.No.35 of 2016 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent and the minor child Vindhya and also seeking medical expenses at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per year to the Minor Child. The above application was contested by the respondent, has admitted the marriage, but stated that it is only this respondent has deserted her and left the matrimonial house with the child. The petitioner has no sufficient means and he is earning only a sum of Rs.100/- or Rs.200/- per day from his Mechanic Shop, and he is not in a position to pay the maintenance.
3. The Court below considering the materials available on record, allowed the application and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month to the petitioner and his minor daughter and also to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month for the medical expenses of the Minor child. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision Case has been filed.
4. Even though, notice has been served on the respondent and the name of the respondent is also printed in the cause list, none appeared for the respondent. Hence, this court appointed Ms.C.Meena, Advocate, as Legal Aid Counsel to appear for the respondent.
5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.
6. Admittedly, the respondent is the wife of the petitioner and it is also admitted that out of the wedlock, a child was born, and the child is a special child, and it is only this respondent is taking care of the differently abled daughter. In the above circumstances, the petitioner has a legal obligation to maintain his wife and daughter. Apart from that it is also admitted that the respondent along with the minor disabled child are at the mercy of the respondent and she has no means. So far as the means of the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner is running a auto mechanic shop and he can earn atleast a sum of Rs.500/- per day and Rs.15,000/- per month. Now, the trial court only ordered a sum of Rs.1,500/-, per month to the respondent and her daughter as maintenance and also ordered a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month for medical expenses for his special child, I find it not excessive. In the above circumstances, there is no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the trial Court.
7. In the result, the Criminal Revision case is dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
8. The Legal Aid Services Authority, High Court, Chennai is directed to pay a fee to the Legal Aid counsel appearing for the respondent.
21.04.2017 rrg/rli Index:Yes To The Family Court, Villupuram V.BHARATHIDASAN,J.
rrg/rli Crl.R.C.No.708 of 2017 21.06.2017
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

A R Senthilmurugan vs Reka

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
21 June, 2017
Judges
  • V Bharathidasan Criminal